Dear Segev, you say:
“[From Sanmario] So, I ask them, if you propose a concept of Bigfoot before you go forth to seek evidence of his existence, is that already a prejudgment that Bigfoot exists?
[From Segev] If you have special rituals that are all based on the assumption that it exists, then yes.. It is making a prejudgment.”
Dear Segev, do you notice that my use of the
if and your use of the
if are different
if's?
My if means when, your if is into a conditional scenario, and I am not talking in a conditional scenario, but you are.
You see, dear Segev, there is no need to make an if condition, because with Bigfoot I am not talking with an if condition, so please don't seek to evade the idea with bringing in an if condition.
There are folks searching for Bigfoot, so they have a concept of what it is, and on that concept they set forth to look for his or its presence in the realm of existence outside and independent of thoughts in their mind.
Do you notice, dear Segev, that you could have the undesirable habit of bringing in an if condition when the talk is not at all on anything of an if scenario.
And your thread here is also, forgive me, nonsense, suggesting that atheists play theists and theists play atheists, for what purpose? so that you being an atheist and playing a theist will achieve, pray, what nonsense objective?
The thread is all Nonsense!
Instead, as you are in fact an atheist, propose that theists present their arguments of God existing and that you will topple all of them, that is the no nonsense thread that you should have gone into.
I notice that atheists have this nonsense trick, of talking in if scenario, and feeling so smug that they have rebutted the arguments of theists on God existing.
Now, I am asking you all atheists here, to work with me a theist as to concur on what is evidence, systematically examining evidence and thus getting to arrive at a mutually concurred on concept of evidence.
Systematically, not in a nonsense if scenario.
That is why I am inviting you atheists all, to first start with this statement on evidence, namely, as follows which I am repeating from my immediately preceding post from myself:
“So, if I may, starting with the OP author, please everyone put your mind to work, and see what revisions you feel should be made on this proposition in our mind:
"Evidence is something existing in reality outside and independent of our mind and/or in our mind as a thought."
Dear readers here, let us sit back and witness how posters here will react to my thinking at this point in time.” [See Annex below.]
Annex
Sanmario Member
Joined:
May 4, 2015
Messages:
51
Ratings:
+0
Religion:
Christian
________________
Thanks to the author of this thread.
Now, let us all work as to concur in our respective mind on what is evidence in re God exists or not.
Here is again my gambit of a concept of evidence [see below for the post of concern].
"Evidence is anything in existence or in concept in our mind, that leads man to know the existence of another thing in objective existence or in existence in our mind."
So, can we concur in our respective mind that evidence is something at all that exists in objective reality outside of our mind and/or even just in our mind as a thought?
So, the first and very simple proposition in our minds is the following:
"Evidence is something existing in reality outside and independent of our mind and/or in our mind as a thought."
From simplicity to complexity, that is the way to do systematic thinking, instead of plunging right away into labyrinthine dense hard to sort out thoughts.
So, if I may, starting with the OP author, please everyone put your mind to work, and see what revisions you feel should be made on this proposition in our mind:
"Evidence is something existing in reality outside and independent of our mind and/or in our mind as a thought."
Dear readers here, let us sit back and witness how posters here will react to my thinking at this point in time.
Sanmario said: ↑
Now, since we are just playing a game, let me take a recess, and return to reality.
Here is my theist's concept of evidence, in the most concise and precise and simple language:
"Evidence is anything in existence or in concept in our mind, that leads man to know the existence of another thing in objective existence or in existence in our mind."
For example, the nose in our face is evidence of God existing in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
For example of a concept as evidence: when you have a concept of a baby and I have a concept of a baby, then we two have the evidence that you and I are capable of abstract knowledge in our mind.
Do you atheists here no longer playing theists but conducting yourselves as sincere, honest, good faith searchers of truths, facts, and logic, now care to put aside your self-identity as atheists, but now as sincere, honest, good faith searchers of truths, facts, and logic, care to join together with me to discuss what is evidence, in re God existing or not?
What about you do some genuine thinking on whether there can be evidence to the non-existence of something?
#35 Sanmario, Yesterday at 4:10 AM
